|
|
#51
06-09-2006, 01:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Ann Coulter Poll
Im not American, and thus dont have political affiliation to either the dems or the repubs.
But the statement: [ QUOTE ] Unlike Michael Moore or Al Franken she does not lie. [/ QUOTE ] Is just comical. I just find it funny how people on one side or another could possibly be so biased that they are blind to the fact that all of the people mentioned have an agenda, and are not above truth-bending or outright lying to get their point accross. (FWIW, I believe the same thing of people who claim that AC lies while Moore or Franken doesnt) 
|
|
#52
06-09-2006, 01:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Not So......Ann Tells It How It Is
Whatever happened to attacking what they have to say instead of attacking the people or their character? Or is that long gone? Did it ever exist?
************************************************** * If there is supporting evidence, attacking someone's character is fair game. But....are you asserting Ann Coulter has never attacked what they said? If so would you like to bet? Save your money. You would lose....
|
|
#53
06-09-2006, 02:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Not So......Ann Tells It How It Is
[ QUOTE ]
Who, in your opinion, are the credible critics of either the Iraq War or the Global War on Terror? ************************************************ Some examples would include: *Thomas Friedman [/ QUOTE ] Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Friedman been an unabashed supporter of both the Iraq War and the GWOT?
|
|
#54
06-09-2006, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Not So......Ann Tells It How It Is
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever happened to attacking what they have to say instead of attacking the people or their character? Or is that long gone? Did it ever exist? ************************************************** * If there is supporting evidence, attacking someone's character is fair game. But....are you asserting Ann Coulter has never attacked what they said? If so would you like to bet? Save your money. You would lose.... [/ QUOTE ] No. Please read more carefully.
|
|
#55
06-09-2006, 02:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thomas Friedman
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Friedman been an unabashed supporter of both the Iraq War and the GWOT?
************************************************** **** Correct me if I'm wrong but he never wanted to the USA to invade Iraq. He did eventually buy into Colin Powell's 'Pottery Barn' plan. You break it, you own it. As for being an unabashed support of Iraq and the GWOT this is not even close. He wants to close Gitmo and many other things that Bush wants. Here are some of his articles. I did not include his pre-Iraq War columns because I don't want to pay the NY Times for their archives. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/opinio...artner=USERLAND http://web.krg.org/articles/article_...mp;RubricNr=94,106,109&ArticleNr=6377&LNNr=28&RNNr=7 0
|
|
#56
06-09-2006, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Strictly no class
[ QUOTE ]
...a deliberate poltical tactic called "human political shields". *John Murtha (you can't attack him because he is a ex-marine) *Cindy Sheehan (you can't attack her because her son died) *Jersey Girls (you can't attack them because they're 911 widows) *Max Cleland (you can't attack him because his lost 4 limbs in Vietnam on his way to a BBQ) *Michael Berg (you can't attack him because his son was beheaded in Iraq) [/ QUOTE ]You got it backwards, a usual occurence with you : It's not that what they are should stop you from attacking their ideas. It's that you can't attack them as persons for what they are! The foaming-at-the-mouth superpatriots are attacking, for example, John Murtha because as an ex-Marine he is supposed to toe the line. The right-wing loonies are attacking Cindy Sheehan because she is a grieving mother who refuses to play her part as a meek sheep who mourns in silence. The neo-con crackpots are attacking the 9/11 widows because they are 9/11 widows and they were supposed to be up on the podium waving a little flag and cozying up to the Commander-in-Chief; etcetera. Attaking those people for what they are is a sure sign of having no class. Of course, the Republican Party has been traveling strictly no class for years.
|
|
#57
06-09-2006, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thomas Friedman
[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Friedman been an unabashed supporter of both the Iraq War and the GWOT? ************************************************** **** Correct me if I'm wrong but he never wanted to the USA to invade Iraq. He did eventually buy into Colin Powell's 'Pottery Barn' plan. You break it, you own it. As for being an unabashed support of Iraq and the GWOT this is not even close. He wants to close Gitmo and many other things that Bush wants. Here are some of his articles. I did not include his pre-Iraq War columns because I don't want to pay the NY Times for their archives. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/opinio...artner=USERLAND http://web.krg.org/articles/article_...mp;RubricNr=94,106,109&ArticleNr=6377&LNNr=28&RNNr=7 0 [/ QUOTE ] I wasn't being sarcastic - I was seriously asking the question. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
|
|
#59
06-09-2006, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I call bullsh*t
[ QUOTE ]
Ann is a satirist and a very good one. [/ QUOTE ] A satirist is someone with humor. And wit. And intelligence. She is lacking in all these departments. You are mistaking the vicious noises she is making for humor only because you share most of her political opinions, such as her insane hatred for anything that smacks of "liberalism". [ QUOTE ] Unlike Michael Moore or Al Franken she does not lie. [/ QUOTE ]Not only does she lie, she is a certified serial liar. In fact, I do not think she is capable of discussing something or writing a text without resorting to lies. It must be something physical. [ QUOTE ] Ann Coulter has more political courage than anyone I know of in American politics. [/ QUOTE ]Yeah, right, she is so going against the current political climate in the U.S., hers is out and out bravery. [ QUOTE ] In his silly book, Al Franken tried to 'prove' Ann was a liar. His so-called proof was an incoherant mesh of out-of-context quotes. Seriously, I have seen 2-years olds make a more compelling case. [/ QUOTE ]Your arguments are pathetic. I have read Al Franken's book and (for better or worse) I have also read Coulter's offerings - at least, some of them. I must say that, if anything, Franken was a gentleman. I mean it is so easy to truly maul the old girl, it's not even an effort. Franken simply took her own book and used it as the rope that it was to tie her neck with it. He coulda hang 'er. [ QUOTE ] I have seen 2-years olds make a more compelling case. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, right. Like when Franken called attention to Coulter's claim that the Newsweek Washington bureau chief Evan Thomas was the son of Norman Thomas, "a four-time Socialist candidate for president". Aside from the fact that Norman Thomas was a candidate six times (Coulter is usually much more cavalier with facts, so that's an insignificant mistake), there was no family relationship between the two Thomases. Just the same name. Did Coulter apologize for the underhand tactic of linking a newsmagazine bureacu chief to the "extreme Left"? Of course not. She is a satirist. She was making a joke.
|
|
#60
06-09-2006, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cyrus is a Carrot Top Groupie
A satirist is someone with humor. And wit. And intelligence. She is lacking in all these departments. You are mistaking the vicious noises she is making for humor only because you share most of her political opinions, such as her insane hatred for anything that smacks of "liberalism".
************************************************* Al Franken told me PERSONALLY that Cyrus is a HUGE fan of "Carrot Top". Clearly anyone that thinks carrot Top is funny can not be remotely qualified to judge Ann Coulter's humor. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] http://www.carrottop.com/newcarrot/index.html Not only does she lie, she is a certified serial liar. In fact, I do not think she is capable of discussing something or writing a text without resorting to lies. ************************************************** **** Care to cite any REAL examples? Please don't waste my time with OPINIONS. Opinions can not be classified as being lies or being truthful. They are just opinions. Yeah, right. Like when Franken called attention to Coulter's claim that the Newsweek Washington bureau chief Evan Thomas was the son of Norman Thomas, "a four-time Socialist candidate for president". Aside from the fact that Norman Thomas was a candidate six times (Coulter is usually much more cavalier with facts, so that's an insignificant mistake), there was no family relationship between the two Thomases. Just the same name. Did Coulter apologize for the underhand tactic of linking a newsmagazine bureacu chief to the "extreme Left"? Of course not. ************************************************** ***** http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...09/168702.html Ann responds "Franken drones on and on for a page and a half about how Norman Thomas was not Evan Thomas' father ? without saying that he was Evan's grandfather. This was one of about five inconsequential errors quickly corrected in "Slander" ? and cited 1 million times by liberals as a "lie." Confusing "father" with "grandfather" is a mistake. Franken's deliberate implication that there was no relationship whatsoever between Norman and Evan Thomas is intentional dishonesty." *Ooooops he was his GRANDFATHER. Wow! What a scandal. She mistakenly wrote father and he was really his GRANDfather.... This is bigger than WATERGATE. Ann has correct this error in later editions of her book. ******Since he was related via his GRANDfather will you now apologize for calling Ann Coulter "under-handed"?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
